Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Human Rights Framework for Climate Engineering: A Response to the Limits of Cost-Benefit Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Climate Geoengineering: Science, Law and Governance

  • 585 Accesses

Abstract

We argue that normative evaluations of climate engineering responses to climate change have been impoverished by an excessive focus on cost-benefit analyses. We suggest that human rights can serve as an effective foundation for richer deliberations concerning the judiciousness of deploying climate engineering options. This chapter proceeds in four main sections. The first describes cost-benefit analysis, explains its role in evaluating public policy, and lays out its limitations. Then, we develop a human rights framework for the evaluation of climate engineering and consider how it avoids the problems of cost-benefit analysis. Yet, the third section describes why a human rights framework might have limited usefulness, because it does not offer adequate action guidance when making tradeoffs between rights or when weighing concurrent impacts on different groups. As a reaction, in the fourth section, we develop a set of principles and conceptual tools to revise the human rights framework so it is more effective in cases where it is necessary to prioritize certain human rights and evaluate impacts on different groups. We consider whether there is a hierarchy of rights that will assist with tradeoffs, and we examine core and periphery obligations stemming from human rights. We then consider whether a focus on vulnerable or marginalized groups helps to weigh impacts on different groups, and we discuss the principle of non-retrogression. Finally, we consider an approach that combines these ideas to address competing human rights claims and avoid narrowly construed zero-sum games.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Crutzen [1].

  2. 2.

    Tilmes et al. [2].

  3. 3.

    See Keith [3].

  4. 4.

    Jamieson [4].

  5. 5.

    For a dated but generally accurate survey of these techniques, see The Royal Society’s Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance, and Uncertainty, September 2009.

  6. 6.

    Barrett [5].

  7. 7.

    Other purported benefits of SRM, especially its speed, can ultimately be understood in terms of cost considerations. The justification for not engaging in immediate, total decarbonization, on the other hand, is that it would be excessively costly in terms of human welfare.

  8. 8.

    For the general structure and popularity of CBA, see the introduction of M. Adler and E. Posner [6].

  9. 9.

    For explanation and utilization of an approach that attempts to maximize the aggregate economic value of a system, see, e.g., Adler and Posner, ibid.; Crutzen, supra note 1; Barrett, supra note 6.

  10. 10.

    See Richardson [7]; R. Frank, ‘State and Federal Regulatory Reform: A Comparative Analysis’ in Adler and Posner, supra note 8; Kelman [8].

  11. 11.

    For a description of the basic structure of the CBA, see Schmidtz [9].

  12. 12.

    Railton [10].

  13. 13.

    See Orr [11].

  14. 14.

    See Schmidtz, supra supra note 11; Grob [12].

  15. 15.

    This should not be taken as conceding that SRM will be cheap. Perhaps it will, perhaps it will not. Yet, judgments about the appropriateness of SRM that depend on its economic cost are the target of these objections.

  16. 16.

    See Keith, supra note 3.

  17. 17.

    See Tilmes, supra note 2.

  18. 18.

    See Crutzen, supra note 1; Barret, supra note 6.

  19. 19.

    See Kelman, supra note 10.

  20. 20.

    This is a conceptual claim: if your key principle is “maximize X,” then you must be indifferent to all other values, except insofar as they maximize X.

  21. 21.

    See Parfit [13].

  22. 22.

    See Nussbaum [14]; Sen [15].

  23. 23.

    See Matthew D. Adler & Eric Posner, ‘Implementing Cost-Benefit Analysis When Preferences are Distorted’ in Adler and Posner, supra note 8.

  24. 24.

    See Schmidtz, supra note 11.

  25. 25.

    See Ackerman and Heinzerling [16].

  26. 26.

    For the idea that people can be “environmentally vicious,” see Sandler [17].

  27. 27.

    For a similar analysis of CE governance in the context of the Paris Agreement using a human rights framework, see Centre for International Governance Innovation, ‘The Paris Agreement and Climate Geoengineering Governance: The Need for a Human Rights-Based Component (2016) CIGI Papers No. 111 (by William C.G. Burns).

  28. 28.

    Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Paris (France), 12 Dec. 2015, in force 5 Oct. 2016.

  29. 29.

    UN GA Resolution A/RES/217(III), of 10 Dec. 1948, on Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

  30. 30.

    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), New York (United States of America), 16 Dec. 1966, in force 23 Mar. 1976; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), New York (United States of America), 16 Dec. 1966, in force 3 Jan. 1976.

  31. 31.

    Human rights treaties on specific issues have also been adopted at the international level. See, e.g., International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), New York (United States of America), 7 Mar. 1966, in force 4 Jan. 1969; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), New York (United States of America), 18 Dec. 1979, in force 3 Sept. 1981; Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), New York (United States of America), 20 Nov. 1989, in force 2 Sept. 1990; Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), New York (United States of America) 30 Mar. 2007, in force 3 May 2008. Human rights treaties have also been adopted at the regional level. See, e.g., American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (ADRDM), Bogota (Colombia), 2 May 1948, in force 2 May 1948; European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Rome (Italy), 4 Nov. 1950, in force 3 Sept. 1953; American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), San José (Costa Rica), 22 Nov. 1969, in force 18 Jul. 1978; African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), Nairobi (Kenya), 27 Jun. 1981, in force 21 Oct. 1986.

  32. 32.

    Hannum [18].

  33. 33.

    See, e.g., Fundamental Law Of Hungary, art. IV(1) (2011, rev. 2013) (adopting language from ICCPR); Const. of Kenya, art. 43 (2010) (adopting language from ICESCR); Const. of Zimbabwe, art. 80 (2013) (adopting language similar to that in CEDAW); Const. of the Republic of Uganda, art. 28(1) (1995, rev. 2005) (adopting language similar to that in ICCPR).

  34. 34.

    See, e.g., Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (United States of America) (referring to article 37 of CRC in juvenile death penalty case); Ochieng v. Attorney Gen., Pet. No. 409 (2009) (H.C.K.) (Kenya) (referring to article 12(1) of ICESCR and an amicus curiae brief submitted by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health in a case involving access to HIV drugs); Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, 3 S.C.C. 1 (2014) (India) (referring to prohibitions on cruel and degrading treatment or punishment in UDHR and ICCPR and a report of the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in a death penalty case involving mentally ill persons).

  35. 35.

    See, e.g., State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation, Case 200.178.245/01, The Hague Court of Appeal (2018) (Netherlands). (holding government responsible for controlling country’s levels of emissions, and finding government must do more to avert negative effects of climate change, because of its duty under the European Convention on Human Rights to protect and promote rights to life and respect for private and family life); Mossville Envtl. Action Now v. United States, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., Report No. 43/10, (2010) (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights agreed to hear a discrimination claim involving a chemical-producing industrial facility accused of contaminating the environment and producing ill-health effects that predominantly affected African-American households); Roche v. United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2005) (holding government violated Article 8 of ECHR and had to make available to claimant all information related to health risks from military mustard and nerve gas tests); Taskin v. Turkey, 2004-X Eur. Ct. H.R. 1149 (2004) (holding government violated Article 8 of ECHR for failing to provide claimant with information about risks to health due to living next to mining site).

  36. 36.

    Dworkin [19].

  37. 37.

    See, e.g., Meier and Chakrabarti [20]. (employing a similar concept of crosscutting principles, including equality and nondiscrimination, participation and accountability, in examining Bhutan’s health system through lens of the right to health).

  38. 38.

    See, e.g., UN CESCR, Gen. Comment No. 3, The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations, para. 12, UN Doc. E/1991/23, 14 Dec. 1990; UN CESCR, Gen. Comment No. 14, The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health, paras. 12(b)(i, ii), 35, 37, 40, 43(a, f), 52, 62, 65, UN Doc. E/C./12/2000/4, 11 Aug. 2000; Audrey R Chapman & Benjamin Carbonetti, ‘Human Rights Protections for Vulnerable And Disadvantaged Groups: the Contributions of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ (2011) 33 Human Rights Quarterly, pp. 682–732; Lourdes Peroni & Alexandra Timmer, ‘Vulnerable groups: The promise of an emerging concept in European Rights Convention law’ (2013) 11(4) International Journal of Constitutional Law, pp. 1056–85.

  39. 39.

    Prohibitions against discrimination appear in every major human rights instrument at the international and regional level. See, e.g., UDHR, supra note 29, art. 7; ICCPR, supra note 30, art. 26; ICESCR, supra note 30, art. 2(2); ICERD, supra note 31; CEDAW, supra note 31; CRC, supra note 31, art. 2; CRPD, supra note 31, art. 5; ECHR, supra note 31, art. 14; ACHR, supra note 31, 1; ACHPR, supra note 31, 2. See also, UN HRC, Gen. Comment 18, Non-discrimination, UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 26, 1994, 10 Nov. 1989; UN CESCR, Gen. Comment No. 20, Non-discrimination in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN Doc. /C.12/GC/20, 2 Jul. 2009.

  40. 40.

    See, e.g., ICCPR, supra note 30, 25; UN HRC, Gen. Comment No. 25, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7, 27 Aug. 1996; UN OHCHR, Promotion, protection and implementation of the right to participate in public affairs in the context of the existing human rights law: best practices, experiences, challenges and ways to overcome them, UN Doc. A/HRC/30/26, 23 Jul. 2015; Fabienne Peter, ‘Human Right to Political Participation’ (2013) 7(2) Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy, (arguing that the right to participate in political affairs is necessary for human rights to secure political legitimacy).

  41. 41.

    See, e.g., UDHR, supra note 29, art. 8; ICCPR, supra note 30, art. 2(3); ICERD, supra note 31, art. 6; Gen. Comment No. 3, supra note 38; ACHR, supra note 31, art. 25(1); UN OHCHR, The OHCHR Accountability and Remedy Project, Illustrative examples for guidance to improve corporate accountability and access to judicial remedy for business-related human rights abuse, (July 5, 2016), http://ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/OHCHRstudyondomesticlawremedies.aspx; Jon M. Van Dyke, Promoting Accountability for Human Rights Abuses, 8 Chap. L. Rev. 153 (2005).

  42. 42.

    For a related discussion of the role of procedural rights in addressing climate change, see Kravchenko [21].

  43. 43.

    See, e.g., Science and Tech. Comm., The Regulation of Geoengineering: Fifth Report of the Session (2009–10), H.C. 221, p. 18 (U.K.) (Comments of John Virgoe to House of Commons committee discussing geoengineering governance, calling for ‘principles around openness, transparency in research, [and] notifying a neighboring country or countries which might be affected’); Royal Soc’y, Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty (2009), pp. 41–43; Carr et al. [22].

  44. 44.

    See Nigel Moore et al., ‘Procedural Governance of Field Experiments in Solar Radiation Management’ (2014) IASS Working Paper, pp. 10–11.

  45. 45.

    See Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, Espoo (Finland), 25 Feb. 1991, in force 10 Sept. 1997.

  46. 46.

    For international and reginal instruments, see, e.g., UDHR, supra note 29, arts. 10, 11, 19, 21; ICCPR, supra note 30, arts. 1, 14, 19, 25; ECHR, supra note 31, arts. 6, 10; ACHR, supra note 31, arts. 8, 13, 23, 25; ACHPR, supra note 31, arts. 7, 9, 13, 20; Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, (Aarhus, Denmark), 25 Jun. 1998, in force 30 Oct. 2001 [hereinafter Aarhus Convention]; supra note 39 for prohibitions against discrimination in regional and international instruments. For constitutions, see, e.g., Const. of United States of America, amends. V, VI, XIV; Const. of Federative Rep. of Brazil of 1988, arts. 4(III), 5(XIV, XXXIII, LIV, LXXVIII), 14; Const. of Rep. of Ghana of 1992, secs. 17, 19, 21(1(f), 3); Const. of India, secs. 15, 16, 21, 22.

  47. 47.

    Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, principle 10, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (Vol. I), Annex I, 12 Aug. 1992.

  48. 48.

    UN Treaty Collection, Status of Ratification, Chapter XXVII, Environment, 13. Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters; Aarhus Convention, supra note 46, pmbl.

  49. 49.

    Aarhus Convention, supra note 46, pmbl, art. 1.

  50. 50.

    Aarhus Convention, supra note 46, pmbl., arts. 3, 6, 15.

  51. 51.

    See, e.g., European Comm., The EU & the Aarhus Convention: in the EU Member States, in the Community Institutions and Bodies, 8 Nov. 2015 (listing directives that have adopted provisions of the Aarhus Convention).

  52. 52.

    Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (Escazú, Costa Rica), 4 Mar. 2018, opened for signature 9 Apr. 2018.

  53. 53.

    UN Treaty Collection, Status of Ratification, Chapter XXVII, Environment, 18. Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean.

  54. 54.

    See, e.g., Universal Declaration on Democracy, Cairo (Egypt), Inter-Parliamentary Council, 16 Sept. 1997; UN OHCHR, Good Governance and Human Rights, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Development/GoodGovernance/Pages/GoodGovernanceIndex.aspx

  55. 55.

    See, e.g., Good Governance and Human Rights, ibid; UN OHCHR, Human Rights and Anti-corruption, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Development/GoodGovernance/Pages/AntiCorruption.aspx

  56. 56.

    See, e.g., Aarhaus Convention, supra note 46, pmbl., arts. 6, 7, 8.

  57. 57.

    Gen. Comment No. 25, supra note 40, para. 6.

  58. 58.

    See, e.g., Aarhaus Convention, supra note 46, art. 4; Steve Rayner et al., The Oxford Principles, Climate Geoengineering Governance Working Paper Series: No. 1, 1 May 2013, 27–31.

  59. 59.

    See, e.g., UN OHCHR, Guiding principles on human rights impact assessments of trade and investment agreements, UN Doc. A/HRC/19/59/Add.5, 19 Dec. 2011; World Bank & Nordic Trust Fund, Human Rights Impact Assessments: A Review of the Literature, Differences with other forms of Assessments and Relevance for Development, Feb. 2013; MacNaughton [23].

  60. 60.

    World Bank & Nordic Trust Fund, ibid, p. xi.

  61. 61.

    See supra note 39.

  62. 62.

    See, e.g., Gen. Comment 18, supra note 39, para. 7; ICERD, supra note 31, art. 1; CEDAW, supra note 31, art. 1; Mossville, supra note 35 (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights agreed to hear discrimination claim on chemical-producing industrial facility accused of contaminating the environment and producing ill-health effects that predominantly affected African-American households).

  63. 63.

    See, e.g., Whyte [24, 25].

  64. 64.

    ICCPR, supra note 30, art. 1; see also, UN HRC, Ominayak and Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada, Comm. No. 167/1984, UN Doc. CCPR/C/38/D/167/1984, 26 Mar. 1990 (Human Rights Committee found a violation of the right of indigenous group to determine its own culture in a case involving environmental changes that prevented indigenous groups from hunting on traditional lands).

  65. 65.

    See, e.g., UDHR, supra note 29, art. 3; ICCPR, supra note 30, art. 6; ECHR, supra note 31, art. 2; ACHR, supra note 31, art. 4. The right to life appears in 117 constitutions, see Constitute Project, https://www.constituteproject.org/search?lang=en&q=Right%20to%20life

  66. 66.

    See, e.g., CRC, supra note 31, pmbl.; CEDAW, supra note 31, art. 13; ICERD, supra note 31, arts. 1, 2, 5.

  67. 67.

    See Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of

    Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador), San Salvador (El Salvador), 17 Nov. 1988, in force 16 Nov. 1999; ACHPR, supra note 31, art. 4; ACHR, supra note 31, ch. 3; ADRDM, supra note 31, art. XXII.

  68. 68.

    See Jung et al. [26] (‘[n]early all new democracies, and several established ones, have included some form of [economic and social rights] in their constitutions’).

  69. 69.

    See, e.g., Robock et al. [27]; Burns [28]; Russel et al. [29]; Crook et al. [30].

  70. 70.

    For an explanation and discussion of sulfur aerosol injection, see, e.g., National Research Council et al., Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool the Earth (2015), pp. 66–101; Burns, supra note 69, 289–92.

  71. 71.

    For the possibility that sulfur aerosol injection may increase availability of water, see Russel et al., supra note 69, p. 360.

  72. 72.

    See, e.g., Robock et al., supra note 69; Russel et al., supra note 69, 356; Tilmes et al., supra note 2; Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool the Earth, ibid., 56–57, 83, 85.

  73. 73.

    ICESCR, supra note 30, art. 11; UN CESCR, Gen. Comment No. 15, The Right to Water, para. 12, UN Doc. E/C.12/2002/11, 20 Jan. 2003.

  74. 74.

    See, e.g., Masstricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, para. 6, UN Doc. E/C.12/2000/13, 2 Oct. 2000 [hereinafter Maastricht Guidelines] (‘Like civil and political rights, economic, social and cultural rights impose three different types of obligations on States: the obligations to respect, protect and fulfil’); UN HRC, Gen. Comment No. 31, The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, paras. 3, 7, 8, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13, 26 May 2004; UN CESCR, Gen. Comment No. 12, The Right to Adequate Food, para. 15, UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/5, 12 May 1999 (‘The right to adequate food, like any other human right, imposes three types or levels of obligations on States parties: the obligations to respect, to protect and to fulfil’); UN CESCR, Gen. Comment No. 13, The Right to Education, para. 46, UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/10, 8 Dec. 1999 (‘The right to education, like all human rights, imposes three types or levels of obligations on States parties: the obligations to respect, protect and fulfil’); Gen. Comment No. 14, supra note 38, para. 33 (‘The right to health, like all human rights, imposes three types or levels of obligations on States parties: the obligations to respect, protect and fulfil’); UN HRC, S. I. D. et al v. Bulgaria, Comm. No. 1926/2010, para. 3.8, UN Doc. CCPR/C/111/D/1926/2010, 29 Sept. 2014; Social and Economic Rights Action Centre and the Centre for Economic and Social Rights v. Nigeria, Comm. No. 155/96, paras. 44–48, (2001) AHRLR 60. See also De Schutter [31]; Knox [32].

  75. 75.

    See, e.g., Maastricht Guidelines, ibid.; Gen. Comment No. 31, ibid, paras. 6, 10; Gen. Comment No. 13, ibid, para. 47; Gen. Comment No. 14., supra note 38, para. 33.

  76. 76.

    Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, paras. 3, 8(a), 19, 20, 28 Sept. 2011, reprinted in (2012) 34 Human Rights Quarterly, pp. 1084–1169 [hereinafter Maastricht Principles]; UN HCRC, Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the relationship between climate change and human rights, para. 86, UN Doc. A/HRC/10/61, 15 Jan. 2009 [hereinafter OHCHR Report on Climate Change and Human Rights].

  77. 77.

    See, e.g., Maastricht Guidelines, supra note 74; Gen. Comment No. 31, supra note 74, para. 8; Gen. Comment No. 13, supra note 74, para. 47; Gen. Comment No. 14., supra note 38, para. 33.

  78. 78.

    Maastricht Principles, supra note 76, paras. 3, 23–26; OHCHR Report on Climate Change and Human Rights, supra note 76, para. 86.

  79. 79.

    See, e.g., Maastricht Guidelines, supra note 74; Gen. Comment No. 31, supra note 74, para. 7; Gen. Comment No. 13, supra note 74, para. 47; Gen. Comment No. 14., supra note 38, para. 33.

  80. 80.

    For the relationship between the duty to fulfill and the right to information, see, e.g., Mariela Belski, Access to Information: An Instrumental Right for Empowerment (2007), pp. 15–16.

  81. 81.

    Maastricht Principles, supra note 76, paras. 3, 28; OHCHR Report on Climate Change and Human Rights, supra note 76, para. 86.

  82. 82.

    Maastricht Principles, supra note 76, paras. 30, 31; OHCHR Report on Climate Change and Human Rights, supra note 76, para. 86..

  83. 83.

    See, e.g., UDHR, supra note 29, art. 8; UN GA Resolution A/RES/60/147, 16 Dec. 2005, on Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law; UN OHCHR, Accountability and Remedy Project: improving accountability and access to remedy in cases of business involvement in human rights abuses, (‘The right to a remedy is a core tenet of the international human rights system …’); Australian Human Rights Commission, Right to an effective remedy, (‘The right to an effective remedy is an essential component of human rights under the ICCPR and other human rights instruments’).

  84. 84.

    ICCPR, supra note 30, art. 2.

  85. 85.

    See UN GA Resolution 60/147, supra note 83.

  86. 86.

    Ibid. para. 19.

  87. 87.

    Ibid. para. 20.

  88. 88.

    Ibid. para. 21.

  89. 89.

    Ibid. para. 22.

  90. 90.

    Ibid. para. 23.

  91. 91.

    See supra notes 83 and 84.

  92. 92.

    For a discussion of CE compensation concerns and possible regimes, see, e.g., Svoboda and Irvine [33]; Horton [34]; Valdivia [35].

  93. 93.

    By radically non-ideal, we mean to refer to two features of climate change policy. First, we are dealing with a public policy problem that has been generated by individuals and groups acting in a seriously unjust way. Second, the nature of climate change and its potential responses make it impossible for us to act in an ideally just way. That is, we have done wrong and someone will unjustly suffer as a consequence. The possibility of acting a way that does no wrong has been foreclosed.

  94. 94.

    See Jamieson, supra note 4.

  95. 95.

    See, e.g., Gordon [36] (Discussing the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’ rejection of an Inuit petition seeking relief from human rights violations resulting from global warming caused by acts and omissions of the United States. The Commission indicated in a letter to the petitioners that the information provided in the petition ‘was insufficient for making a determination’); Posner, [37] (Arguing that international human rights litigation will not lead to a desirable outcome for victims of climatic change).

  96. 96.

    See, e.g., Male’ Declaration on the Human Dimension of Global Climate Change, 14 Nov. 2007 (Representatives of ‘Small Island Developing States’ expressing concern that ‘climate change has clear and immediate implications for the full enjoyment of human rights’); UN HRC Resolution 7/23, 28 Mar. 2008, on Human Rights and Climate Change (Declaring concern that ‘climate change poses an immediate and far-reaching threat to people and communities around the world and has implications for the full enjoyment of human rights’ and calling on the UN OHCHR to study the relationship between climate change and human rights); OHCHR Report on Climate Change and Human Rights, supra note 76; UN HRC Resolution 10/4, 25 March 2009, on Human Rights and Climate Change; UN HRC Resolution 18/22, 17 October 2011, on Human Rights and Climate Change; UN HRC Resolution 26/27, 15 July 2014, on Human Rights and Climate Change; UN OHCHR, Mapping Human Rights Obligations Relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment: Focus report on human rights and climate change (2014); UN HRC, Summary report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the outcome of the full-day discussion on specific themes relating to human rights and climate change, UN Doc. A/HRC/29/19, 1 May 2015; UN HRC Resolution 29/15, 30 June 3015, on Human Rights and Climate Change; Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Burning Down the House, Speech delivered at Paris Climate Change Conference, 3 Dec. 2015 (Stating that ‘international human rights law imposes affirmative legal obligations on all states to take the necessary steps in law, policy, institutions, and public budgets to protect human rights from [] harms’ due to climate change’); UN HRC, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment on the human rights obligations relating to climate change, UN Doc. A/HRC/31/52, 1 Feb. 2016. See also, Doudda et al. [38]; International Council on Human Rights Policy, Climate Change and Human Rights: A Rough Guide (2008); John H. Knox, supra note 74; Limon [39]; Knox [40]; Humphreys [41]; Bodansky [42]; Allard [43]; Quirico and Boumghar (eds.) [44].

  97. 97.

    The Environment and Human Rights (State Obligations in Relation to the Environment in the Context of the Protection and Guarantee of the Rights to Life and to Personal Integrity – Interpretation and Scope of Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-23/18, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2017).

  98. 98.

    Ibid. para. 47

  99. 99.

    State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation, supra note 35.

  100. 100.

    Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment and Others, STC4360–2018, p. 13, Supreme Court of Justice (2018) (Colombia).

  101. 101.

    Ibid.

  102. 102.

    Armando Ferrão Carvalho and Others v. The European Parliament and the Council, Case T-330/18, General Court (EGC) (2018).

  103. 103.

    What is more, these differences will frequently cut across standard political, social, economic, or geographic groups: global south/north, rich/poor, etc.

  104. 104.

    It is uncontroversial in the philosophical literature that anthropogenic climate change will very likely cause egregious human rights violations. See, e.g., Caney [45].

  105. 105.

    We mean pareto-optimal here in the broad, metaphorical sense of improvement in terms of value X for at least one person Y and no decreases in X for anyone else.

  106. 106.

    It is also far from obvious that the best response to unavoidable human rights violations is to try to minimize the number of violations. Even setting aside questions of responsibility, there remains the question of distribution. See Held [46] (arguing that—when faced with unavoidable violations—we should try to more equitably distribute human rights violations before minimizing).

  107. 107.

    For a more detailed discussion of these claims, see the last section of this paper.

  108. 108.

    See Shue [47]; Beitz [48].

  109. 109.

    Griffin, [49].

  110. 110.

    A Stone Sweet and J. Matthews [50].

  111. 111.

    See Nozick [51]; Dworkin [52].

  112. 112.

    Some—see, e.g., Morrow and Svboda [53]—have suggested that radically non-ideal nature of climate policy-making, where we do wrong no matter we do, can be resolved through use of a ‘clinical’ moral theory that compares feasible alternatives that produce the ‘least’ injustice. We welcome these contributions, but our project is somewhat distinct, in two ways. First, these views often rely on ‘intuitive’ notions of proportionality by which many incommensurable goods and values can be compared. So, our analysis, to an extent, starts up where theirs leaves off. Second, our view is an attempt to see what internal resources the human rights discourse has to deal with these kinds of tradeoffs. In that sense, our view is interpretative as well as normative.

  113. 113.

    For a discussion of a hierarchy of human rights, see, e.g., Scheinin [54] (suggesting that human rights ‘hierarchies could [] be relied upon, for instance, in resolving conflicts between human rights, by giving primacy to the hierarchically superior right’).

  114. 114.

    See UN OHCHR, Frequently Asked Questions on a Human Rights-Based Approach to Development Cooperation, UN Doc. HR/PUB/06/8 (2006) (asking ‘Is there any hierarchy among human rights?’ and answering, no, ‘all human rights are equally important’ and declaring human rights ‘all have equal status as rights, and cannot be ranked, a priori, in a hierarchical order’); World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, para. 5, UN Doc. A/CONF.157/23, 12 Jul. 1993.

  115. 115.

    ICCPR, supra note 30, art. 4(2) (declaring States Parties may not derogate the right to life, among others, even during a ‘time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed,’ as described in article 4(1)); See also, e.g., Scheinin supra note 112, p. 2 (‘The right to life and the prohibition against torture, and violations of human dignity … are strong candidates for [] special status’); Popovic [55] (stating the right to life represents the most basic human right and ‘figures prominently in all basic international human rights instruments’).

  116. 116.

    See generally UDHR, supra note 29, art. 25(1) (‘Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health of himself and of his family, including food … and medical care and necessary social services’); Gen. Comment No. 15, supra note 73, para. 1 (‘Water is a limited natural resource and a public good fundamental for life and health’); ICESCR, supra note 30, art. 11(1) (recognizing ‘the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food …’).

  117. 117.

    Scheinin, supra note 112, pp. 5–10 (arguing that ‘every human right contains a core with the quality of a rule’ and the ‘inviolability of the essential core of any human right is an important step in the assessment of permissible limitations to the broader human right surrounding that core’).

  118. 118.

    Gen. Comment No. 3, supra note 38, para. 10.

  119. 119.

    Gen. Comment No. 14, supra note 38, para. 43.

  120. 120.

    Gen. Comment No. 14, supra note 38, para. 43.

  121. 121.

    See, e.g., Narula [56] (arguing rights-based approach sets baseline for protecting rights of land users); Wilson [57] (discussing rights that set the floor of the Inter-American system).

  122. 122.

    See, e.g., UN OHCHR, Fact Sheet No. 33: Frequently Asked Questions on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2008), p. 16; Gen. Comment No. 3, supra note 38, para. 9; UN CESCR, Gen. Comment No. 4, The Right to Adequate Housing, para. 11, UN Doc. E/1992/23, 13 Dec. 1991; Gen. Comment No. 12, supra note 74, para. 19; Gen. Comment No. 13, supra note 74, paras. 45, 49; Gen. Comment No. 14, supra note 38, paras. 32, 48; Gen. Comment No. 15, supra note 73, paras. 19, 21, 42.

  123. 123.

    UN OHCHR, Report on austerity measures and economic and social rights, paras. 40–43, UN Doc. E/2013/82, 7 May 2013 (‘the adoption of deliberately retrogressive measures constitutes a prima facie violation of the [ICESCR]’).

  124. 124.

    See, e.g., Bohlen [58]; Stovin v. Wise [1996] UKHL 1, 24 July 1996.

References

  1. Crutzen, P.: Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma. Clim. Chang. 77, 211–220 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Tilmes, S., et al.: The hydrological impact of geoengineering in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). J. Geophys. Res. 118(19), 11036–11058 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Keith, D.: A Case for Climate Engineering. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2013)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Jamieson, D.: Adaptation, mitigation, and justice. In: Sinott-Armstrong, W., Howarth, R. (eds.) Perspectives on Climate Change: Science, Economics and Politics, pp. 217–248. Elsevier JAI, Amsterdam/San Diego (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Barrett, S.: The incredible economics of geoengineering. Environ. Resour. Econ. 39(1), 45–54 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Adler, M., Posner, E.: Cost-Benefit Analysis: Economic, Philosophical, and Legal Perspectives. University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Richardson, H.: The stupidity of the cost-benefit standard. J. Leg. Stud. 29(2), 971 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kelman S.: Cost-benefit analysis: An ethical critique. AEI J. Govern. Soc. Regul., pp. 33–40 (1981, Jan-Feb)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Schmidtz, D.: A place for cost-benefit analysis. Philos. Issues. 11(1), 148–171 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Railton, P.: Costs and benefits of cost-benefit analysis: A response to Bantz to MacLean. In: 1982 PSA: Proceedings of Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 261–272 (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Orr, S.: Values, preferences, and the citizen-consumer distinction in cost-benefit analysis. Politics Philos. Econ. 5(3), 377–400 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Grob, G.F.: Providing recommendations, suggestions, and options for improvement. In: Wholey, J. (ed.) Hand book of Practical Program Evaluation (Wiley-Blackwell, 4th ed., 2010) 13. Parfit D.: Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nussbaum, M.: Sex and Social Justice. Oxford University Press, New York (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sen, A.: Development as Freedom. Anchor, New York (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ackerman, F., Heinzerling, L.: Priceless: On Knowing the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing. The New Press, New York (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sandler, R.: Character and Environment: A Virtue-Oriented Approach to Environmental Ethics. Columbia University Press, New York (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hannum, H.: The status of the universal declaration of human rights in national and international law. Ga. J. Int. Comp. Law. 25, 287–297 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dworkin, R.: Law’s Empire. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Meier, B.M., Chakrabarti, A.: The paradox of happiness: Health and human rights in the Kingdom of Bhutan. Health Hum. Rights. 18(1), 193–208 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kravchenko, S.: Procedural rights as a crucial tool to combat climate change symposium: International human rights and climate change. Ga. J. Int. Comp. Law. 38(3), 613–638 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Carr, W., et al.: Public engagement on solar radiation management and why it needs to happen now. Clim. Chang. 121(3), 567–577 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. MacNaughton, G.: Human rights impact assessment: A method for healthy policymaking. Health Hum. Rights. 17(1) (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Whyte, K.P.: Now This! Indigenous sovereignty, political obliviousness and governance models for SRM research. Ethics Pol. Environ. 15(2), 172–187 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Whyte, K.P.: Indigenous peoples, solar radiation management, and consent. In: Preston, C.J. (ed.) Engineering the Climate: The Ethics of Solar Radiation Management, pp. 65–76. Lexington Books (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jung, C., et al.: Economic and social rights in national constitutions. Am. J. Comp. Law. 62(4), 1043–1098 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Robock, A., Oman, L., Stenchikov, G.L.: Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections. J. Geophys. Res. 113(D16101), 1–15 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Burns, W.: Geoengineering the climate: An overview of solar radiation management options. Tulsa Law Rev. 46(2), 283–304, 290–91 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Russel, L.M., et al.: Ecosystem impacts of geoengineering: A review for developing a science plan. Ambio. 41(4), 350–69, 358 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Crook, J., et al.: A comparison of temperature and precipitation responses to different Earth radiation management geoengineering schemes. J. Geophys. Res. 120(18), 9352–9373 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. De Schutter, O.: International Human Rights Law: Cases, Materials, Commentary, 2nd edn, pp. 280–291. Cambridge University Press (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Knox, J.H.: Climate change and human rights law. Va. J. Int. Law. 50(1), 163–218, 179–80 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Svoboda, T., Irvine, P.: Ethical and technical challenges in compensating for harm due to solar radiation management geoengineering. Ethics Pol. Environ. 17(2), 157–174 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Horton, J.: Solar geoengineering: Reassessing benefits, costs, and compensation. Ethics Pol. Environ. 17(2), 175–177 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Valdivia W.D.: The fair compensation problem of geoengineering. The Brookings Institution. (2016, 23 Feburary)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gordon, J.: Inter-American commission to hold hearing after rejecting inuit climate change petition. Sustain. Dev. Law Pol. 7(2), 55 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Posner, E.: Climate change and international human rights litigation: A critical appraisal. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 155, 1925–1945 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Doudda, J.V., Corkery, A., Chartres, R.: Human rights and climate change. Aust. Int. Law J. 14(1), 161–184 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Limon, M.: Human rights and climate change: Constructing a case for political action. Harv. Environ. Law Rev. 33, 439–476 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Knox, J.H.: Linking human rights and climate change at the united nations. Harv. Environ. Law Rev. 33, 478–498 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Humphreys, S. (ed.): Human Rights and Climate Change. Cambridge University Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Bodansky, D.: Introduction: Climate change and human rights: Unpacking the issues symposium: International human rights and climate change. Georgia J. Int. Comparative Law. 38(3), 511–524 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Allard, K.: Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic. Yale Law School, Human Rights and Climate Change Obligations, Draft Memorandum for the Experts. Group on Global Climate Obligations (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Quirico, O., Boumghar, M. (eds.): Climate Change and Human Rights: An International and Comparative Law Perspective. Routledge (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Caney, S.: Climate change, human rights, and moral thresholds. In: Humphreys, S. (ed.) Human Rights and Climate Change, pp. 69–90. Cambridge University Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Held, V.: How Terrorism is Wrong: Morality and Political Violence. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Shue, H.: Basic Rights. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Beitz, C.: The Idea of Human Rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  48. Griffin, J.: On Human Rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  49. Stone Sweet, A., Matthews, J.: Proportionality balancing and global constitutionalism. Colum. J Transnatl. Law. 47(72) (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Nozick, R.: Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books, New York (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Dworkin, R.: Rights as trumps. In: Waldron, J. (ed.) Theories of Rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Morrow, D., Svboda, T.: Geoengineering and non-ideal justice. Public Aff. Q. 30(1), 85–104 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Scheinin, M.: Core rights and obligations. In: Shelton, D. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law, pp. 527–540 (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  54. Popovic, N.A.F.: In pursuit of environmental human rights: Commentary on the draft declaration of principles on human rights and the environment. Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 27, 487–603, 515 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Narula, S.: The global land rush: Markets, rights, and the politics of food. Stanf. J. Int. Law. 49, 101–75, 139 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Wilson, R.J.: Supporting or thwarting the revolution? The Inter-American human rights system and criminal procedure Reform in Latin America. Southwest. J. Law Trade Am. 14(2), 287–318, 299 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Bohlen, F.H.: The basis of affirmative obligations in the Law of Tort. Am. Law Reg. 53(4), 209–239 (1905)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Human Rights Lawyer & Independent Researcher, Chicago, IL, USA

    Brian Citro

  2. Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands

    Patrick Taylor Smith

Authors
  1. Brian Citro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick Taylor Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Co-Director, Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy, American University, Visiting Professor, Environmental Policy and Culture program, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

    Wil Burns

  2. Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

    David Dana

  3. American University, Washington DC, WA, USA

    Simon James Nicholson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Citro, B., Taylor Smith, P. (2021). A Human Rights Framework for Climate Engineering: A Response to the Limits of Cost-Benefit Analysis. In: Burns, W., Dana, D., Nicholson, S.J. (eds) Climate Geoengineering: Science, Law and Governance. AESS Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies and Sciences Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72372-9_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation